Re: [PATCH v3] gdb: align siginfo_t with the Linux kernel definition

On Sat, 25 Jul 2026, Luis wrote:

> > > Naming is hard. Given it is an anonymous union, should it have something
> > > anonymous in the name?
> > > 
> > 
> > I understand your point, but the name is going to start getting very
> > lengthy.
> > What about "_anon_union" ?
> > 
> 
> That reads fine to me.

 Hmm, if this union is anonymous, then why does it have to be named on the 
GDB side in the first place?

  Maciej